So, if private investors are finding that wind and solar are lousy investments, even with all the subsidies and credits, when will the politicians spending your tax dollars figure it out? Of course, we already know the answer … politicians will stop funding wind and solar with your tax dollars as soon as the wind and solar lobby stops funding the campaigns of politicians with your tax dollars.

Have a look at this article by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, at MinnPost.com.

According to Mr. MacDonald, renewables, particularly wind and solar are failing to generate adequate returns in the so called “mutual funds driven to make money by fighting global warming.”

Mr. MacDonald says, “Investors have reason to complain. Funds focused on renewable energy have been in the cellar, posting three-year returns in the bottom fifth percentile of their respective categories, according to fund tracker Morningstar. Those with the greatest exposure to wind and solar stocks have had the poorest returns of all.”

So, what’s an investment group to do? The “DWS Climate Change Fund, based in Kansas City, Mo., which lost 10.7 percent over the three years ending Dec. 31,” chose to remove from its Top 10 holdings “the three solar and wind stocks that made up 12.5 percent of the portfolio in July,” according to the article.

Other companies are following suit. But, according to the article, “some funds appear to be as zealous as ever for the clean-energy cause. The Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund has 80 percent of its holdings in wind and solar. Down a painful 29 percent over the past three years, the London-based fund ranks dead last among energy-sector funds, according to Morningstar.”

One thing for sure, in spite of subsidies now, the wind and solar business will ultimately live or die based on performance. My bet is they go under and, unfortunately, all the folks who signed agreements and fully expected the developers and owners to decommission and remove the massive clutter from their communities at the sooner, rather than later, end of their useful life will have to explain why the community is suffering further financial loss.